In this post, I'm going to talk about the relationship I had with God before I got involved with TWI, not as any sort of boasting, but because there were a number of things I had learned BEFORE I had ever heard of The Way International. And those things influenced both what I thought of TWI while in, and some of the things I've had to flush from my mind since.
I was not a particulary religious youth, but I went to a denominational college because it was located in my home town and my Pop wouldn't have to pay extra for housing expenses. I didn't belong to the denomination, so I was one of the token heathen on campus, but I DID read the Bible as a result of course requirements. Even though I didn't understand or trust the Bible, I had read it as an adult.
In 1973, at the age of 24, I came to the end of my rope. I was going crazy. I was by myself, sobbing. There was nothing I could change about the place where I was, the people around me, or even my own schedule or lifestyle, and I knew I was as close to the brink of going crazy as I had ever been. I was going to go crazy if something didn't change, and there was nothing outside myself I could change. I began to hyperventilate. Without any expectation of result, simply because it wasn't the only thing I hadn't already tried, I cried out "God help me..." And as I did so, I remembered reading a verse where Jesus had said he would do whatever we asked, if we asked in his name.
So I finished up, "...in the name of Jesus Christ." Immediately, my breathing returned to normal, and I began a process I can describe only as God teaching me how to change the things that were in my heart.
I believed in reincarnation at the time, and I thought of Jesus as an ascended master. I learned from a book called Real Magic that I could work magic through my believing, and that the paraphenalia of magic work as objects for focusing believing. I thought that I could sometimes get results using the name of Jesus Christ because it was operating as a focus. I also made it a habit to express thanksgiving when I prayed.
For a time, I was working at a job that required fine manual dexterity. One day at work, I found myself getting so upset that my hands were trembling. I couldn't do the work. I needed to call my then-current girlfriend that evening, and I very well knew that we might break up as a result of the phone call. I took a break, went out back and paced around. As I paced, I talked to God. I said, "God, I don't know what's going to happen tonight, but I'm going to accept whatever happens as your will. Thank you in the name of Jesus Christ." Instantly I was inundated with peace, and all the anxiety was washed away. I was able to go back in and work.
A couple of years later, in the fall of 1979, I was invited to a twig meeting and I went, out of curiosity. The young lady who did the teaching taught on Philippians 4:6&7, "Be careful for nothing; but in every thing by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made unto God. And the peace of God, which passeth all understanding, shall keep your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus."
That teaching got me intrigued. I knew it was real and I knew it was spiritual, because I had experienced it out behind work that day. But that was the first time I had ever heard anybody teach anything I personally knew to be real and spiritual from THE BIBLE! It was like God tapping me on the shoulder and saying "There's something I want you to learn here, boy." One thing led to another, and I took PFAL in July of 1980. "Power of attorney" and "the law of believing" seemed (super)natural enough to me. My brother and I had been trying for a dozen or so years to figure out what happens to people when they die, and I found "the dead are not alive" revolutionary for my thinking.
But it took me awhile before I bought into what Wierwille called the "integrity" of the Word of God. One day a few months after I had taken PFAL (I think about the same time I took the intermediate class), I was reading along in the Old Testament, and I noticed a particular word, and from the context I thought "I bet it's "thus-and-such". I looked it up, and found out it WAS "thus-and-such". That was the spine-tingling moment for me, when I sold out to The Way International.
It's time for me to take my insulin again. More later tonight.
So there I was... I wasn't just surrounded by twiggies... I WAS one! Group-thinker, extraordinaire. A couple of years after I took PFAL, I went WOW to Tucson in the 40th Anniversary Wave. After that, I coordinated a twig for two years, and then went into the 16th Corps. I was in residence at Gunnison on the Corps Night when CG33r read "The Passing of A Patriarch". Coincidentally, my Pop had a massive stroke, and at the end of the block a few days later, I dropped from the 16th Corps and went home to help take care of him. My home is in Indiana, and I was able to get over to headquarters frequently, so I had a ringside seat to watch the implosion during the early fog years. I disassociated from TWI in 1986 when I found out about the sexual predation from a girl I knew who had experienced it firsthand. But I went to the ROA in '87 and took whoever I could out to the woods to tell them the truth about what was going on. That was my last involvement with The Way International.
When JAL came back to Indy in the late-'80s, I started attending his early CES functions. In the early days of CES, John, John and Mark were willing to re-examine the things we had been taught in TWI. They rejected the law of believing as turning God into a vending machine. They recovered some appreciation of the Lordship of Jesus Christ. But they out Weirwille-ed Wierwille with "Don't Blame God." I slumped back into the same sort of passive acceptance I had experienced in TWI.
Then came Momentus.
About a year after I took the Momentus training, a few people started speaking frankly about the horrors they had suffered as a result, and I recognized elements of my own experience. It dawned on us that we hadn't suffered because WE had been screwed up, but because MOMENTUS was screwed up. When we brought this to the attention of the leaders of CES, they seemed incredibly blind to common sense, and the havoc they were wreaking on their followers lives. I had to leave CES in about '95. The Who's song "Won't Be Fooled Again" took on a lot of significance for a number of us.
I haven't been closely associated with any religious organization since, though I did teach humane letters to seventh-graders for five years at an interdenominational school. That was a lot of fun, and we faculty members enjoyed discussing the things of God while agreeing to disagree.
Right now, I don't think there's a Christian group on the face of the earth that wouldn't consider me to be a heretic in one way or another. A few years back, I read a book called "The Origins of Stoic Cosmology" by David E. Hahm and found out that Stoicism was the default popular philosophy in the Greco-Roman world from about 300 BC to about 200 AD. During the past couple of years, I've been reading Augustine, looking for the neo-platonism HE took for granted. The other day, I learned about a book called "Paul and the Stoics" by Troels Engberg-Pederson, and I ordered a copy. I'm waiting breathlessly for it to arrive.
I noticed you've lumped CES/ STFI into the TWI yeast filled dough. I'm not sure how this relates to TWI, but if you have specific questions I'd be glad to answer them. I consider John Schoenheit a friend (and old friend for that matter). When CES speaks it's usually him, eh?
Also, I'm not necessarily a fan of John P. Juedes and his analysis of disparate groups, inclusive of TWI and CES and whoever else. And I'm not sure who STTIL is (in Juedes' report)? Can you help?
Bob
Hi Bob,
I want to really read your first post. . . . and take my time with it. I can't even express to you how much I appreciate the time you put into it. Thursday and Fridays are travel days for me. . . depending. So, if you asked me a question I am not ignoring you.
I did want to answer this quickly though. It wasn't that I was lumping CES with TWI in this case. . . it was that I wanted to illustrate the point that Geisler knew of TWI and VP. The reason I know this is that I have a friend who co-authored a book with Geisler. We have spoken about TWI and the splinter groups. I think there was some back and forth between CES and some papers submitted somewhere. . . . I think Harvard may have ended up with them?? But, that blurb from the article illustrated my point. Although, all you have to do is read anything by Geisler on cults.
From where I sit, Pastor Juedes has been a faithful friend to people in TWI, and I recognize his analysis of disparate groups like TWI. I don't have a very high opinion of TWI and like you have moved on.
In general TWI "offshoots" get lumped in with TWI because they're...offshoots. Different branches...sometimes really different branches...but the same root. That's my observation, others may have different things to say.
In general TWI "offshoots" get lumped in with TWI because they're...offshoots. Different branches...sometimes really different branches...but the same root. That's my observation, others may have different things to say.
I have listened to many hours of CES/STF/CFFM classes and, judging from what I have read in this forum, virtually all of it is Way doctrine warmed up. Which makes sense to me since my ex-Way friend (who sent me the classes) may have left the ministry but she hasn't abandoned the doctrine.
Practically, open theism makes the case for a personal God who is open to influence through the prayers, decisions, and actions of people. Although many specific outcomes of the future are unknowable, God's foreknowledge of the future includes that which is determined as time progresses often in light of free decisions that have been made and what has been sociologically determined. So God knows everything that has been determined as well as what has not yet been determined but remains open. As such, he is able to anticipate the future, yet remains fluid to respond and react to prayer and decisions made either contrary or advantageous to His plan or presuppositions.
Boyd claims that "open theism" is an inappropriate term since the position posits more about the nature of time and reality than it does about God itself. This is to say that open theists do not believe that God doesn't know the future, but rather that the future doesn't exist to be known by anyone. For the open theist the future simply hasn't happened yet, not for anyone, and thus is unknowable in the common sense. Thus, to say that God doesn't know the future is akin to saying that he doesn't know about square circles. In this understanding, it could be technically wiser to refer to the view as "Open Futurism"
CES/STFI promotes this view but TWI did not. It is a view used to explain why God changes his mind, makes mistakes, and bad things happen despite God being "all good" but not capably in control of everything.
Open theism is concerned with how God experiences the world. It asks and attempts to answer the questions, "What does God know?" and "When does He know it?" The essence of the questions open theists ask are not dealing with how God knows the future, but if he knows it at all.3 An early proponent of open theism said, "God experienced the events of the world He has created. . .as they happen, rather than all at once in some timeless, eternal perception. This also means that not even God knows the future in all its details."4 Open theists maintain that God does not know what a given human being will do until he acts. They refer to such human actions as "possibilities."5 Because God remains unaware of human possibilities, the future remains "open" in His mind. This means that rather than God knowing all things, He is in the process of learning new things as they take place.6 This is a significant redefinition of the classical doctrine of God's omniscience.7 The open theist's view of omniscience is that God has complete knowledge of the past and the present, but not the future8 What God does know of the future is in reference to what he knows of "present dispositions, proclivities, inclinations, intentions and probabilities as well as they can be known."9
Along with the doctrine of omniscience, open theism questions and redefines a number of historical and theological formulations of the attributes of God.
Independence. Grudem defines God's independence as, "God does not need us or the rest of creation for anything, yet we and the rest of creation can glorify him and bring him joy."10 Open theism teaches that God is dependent on the world in certain respects.11
Immutability. Classical theology defines God's immutability as, "God is unchanging in his being, perfections, purposes, and promises, yet God does act and feel emotions, and he acts and feels differently in response to different situations.12 Open theism teaches God is, "…open to new experiences, has a capacity for novelty and is open to reality, which itself is open to change."13 Trying to have it both ways open theism says, "God is immutable in essence and in his trustworthiness over time, but in other respects God changes."14
Eternality. Classical theism states, "God has no beginning, end, or succession of moments in his own being, and he sees all time equally vividly, yet God sees events in time and acts in time."15 Open theism teaches that, "God is a temporal agent. He is above time in the sense that he is above finite experience and measurement of time but he is not beyond "before and after" or beyond sequence of events. Scripture presents God as temporally everlasting, not timelessly eternal….Clearly God is temporally related to creatures and projects himself and his actions along a temporal path."16
Omnipresence. Classical theology teaches that just as God is unlimited or infinite with respect to time, so God is unlimited with respect to space. God's omnipresence may be defined as, "God does not have size or spatial dimensions and is present at every point of space with his whole being, yet God acts differently in different places."17 A leading proponent of open theism says, "I do not feel obliged to assume that God is a purely spiritual being when his self-revelation does not suggest it….The only persons we encounter are embodied persons and, if God is not embodied, it may prove difficult to understand how God is a person….Embodiment may be the way in which the transcendent God is able to be immanent and why God is presented in such terms."18
Unity. The unity of God in classical theology is defined as, "God is not divided into parts, yet we see different attributes of God emphasized at different time."19 This is also called in theology the "simplicity" of God, meaning that God in not composed of parts and cautioning against singling out any one attribute of God as more important than all the others. This will be examined when the hermeneutics of open theism is discussed. Open theism reveals that, "The doctrine of divine simplicity, so crucial to the classical understanding of God, has been abandoned by a strong majority of Christian philosophers, through it still has a small band of defenders."20 Clark Pinnock, having abandoned this doctrine says, "Let us not treat the attributes of God independently of the Bible but view the biblical metaphors as reality-depicting descriptions of the living God, whose very being is self-giving love."21
Omnipotence. Classical theism defines God's omnipotence in reference to His own power to do what he decides to do. It states, "God's omnipotence means that God is able to do all his holy will."22 On the other hand open theism states that "we must not define omnipotence as the power to determine everything but rather as the power that enables God to deal with any situation that arises."23 Pinnock openly states that, "God cannot just do anything he wants, when he wants to….His power can, at least temporarily, be blocked and his will not be done in the short term.
Here is a synopsis of Open Theism from Bible.org . . . . .
Thank you for that geisha. This Open Theism makes God out to be a bit mellower than what most people think of him as -- more of a "nice guy" (I guess maybe that should be Nice Guy, with caps). So I can see why many Christians would have problems with it.
Thank you for that geisha. This Open Theism makes God out to be a bit mellower than what most people think of him as -- more of a "nice guy" (I guess maybe that should be Nice Guy, with caps). So I can see why many Christians would have problems with it.
I think it makes Him out to be clueless myself, but God is very kind.
Thank you for that geisha. This Open Theism makes God out to be a bit mellower than what most people think of him as -- more of a "nice guy" (I guess maybe that should be Nice Guy, with caps). So I can see why many Christians would have problems with it.
I second soul searcher in thanking you for your post, geisha!
In the early days of CES, I was on the Dialogue staff and I helped proof read some of the books John, John and Mark put out. I compiled the index for one of them, I think it was "Is there Death After Life?" They gave me a typescript of "Don't Blame God" to proof, and it just about killed any enthusiasm I had previously had for CES "research."
If I remember rightly, it was while they were working on "Don't Blame God" that they came up with the wonderful idea that God can't have foreknowledge, because if He did, that would make Him responsible for evil. Wierwille taught that the passages in the Bible that seem to indicate God does unpleasant things were simply "idiom of permission" or weren't addressed to Christians. CES took those teachings to another order of magnitude with all sorts of tortured rationalizations. I think they believed their teachings about "Don't Blame God" were major, if not the most important, selling points for their class, "Introduction to God's Heart."
CES ran into big problems with their God's lack of foreknowledge. How can we rely on the accuracy of prophecy if God doesn't have foreknowledge? On what foundation does our hope for the future rest? They fell back on the old feature of determinism, if you could know where all the particles in the universe were located at a given moment, and you could know how they were moving, you could extrapolate everything that had ever happened since the beginning, and everything that will ever happen until the end. They concluded that God's omniscience doesn't depend on foreknowledge, but rather on being aware of where all the particles are, and how they are moving.
But... that raises two other problems, one physical, the other theological. The physical problem arises from the truth that the quantum-mechanical model of the universe, which actually works on scales where the deterministic classical-mechanical model doesn't, eliminates determinism at a fundamental level. The theological problem arises because, if the universe is sufficiently deterministic for God to predict that some guys are going to be rolling dice over Jesus' coat a thousand years before it happens, how can it be said that human beings have any meaningful degree of free will?
CES posited that human beings DO have free will, but there are enough deterministic factors in play for God to deliver accurate prophecies. In essence, they simply denied that a contradiction exists. They didn't comprehend how far their rationalizations had taken them from physical and Biblical actuality.
In my opinion, the CES rationalizations have turned their God into a Pillsbury Doughboy (punch him in the stomach, and he just giggles), perpetually on the ropes at the mercy of a nearly omnipotent devil. To say God can't have foreknowledge of an uncertain universe is to limit God's point of view to that of man, a whopping diminution.
I would rather have a God who is responsible for evil than a God who is irresponsible.
I have listened to many hours of CES/STF/CFFM classes and, judging from what I have read in this forum, virtually all of it is Way doctrine warmed up. Which makes sense to me since my ex-Way friend (who sent me the classes) may have left the ministry but she hasn't abandoned the doctrine.
Wondering which "doctrine" is bad that she might have been encouraged to abandon? Maybe that's another thread to start, eh?
RE
Thank you for that geisha. This Open Theism makes God out to be a bit mellower than what most people think of him as -- more of a "nice guy" (I guess maybe that should be Nice Guy, with caps). So I can see why many Christians would have problems with it.
While Open Theism is not the subject in this thread, there may be areas that come up with the question of God’s soverienty in mind (and is "almighty" a good translation for shadai?). And please do go to those who have written first on the subject (Primary sources, not secondary) and make up your own minds. I suppose a thread on this subject would fill up the next few months in my schedule, so I’m not necessarily interested in formulating a Biblical theory here on GS, but I’ll comment as I can as it relates here.
I remember when I first came to a beginning understanding of the Bible and I had everybody and his brother telling me what they thought (I was brought up Roman Catholic without a “lic” of sense about the book). It got so intense after I spoke in tongues (didn’t quite know what it was and the church I attended wasn’t…shall we say…informing me from the Bible) that I quit engineering school and went to a Bible college. My desire was to learn the primary sources of all this Bible stuff (Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic) and read the damn thing myself without the wool being pulled over my eyes…ever again.
Please, when something comes up here that is foreign to you or is in some sense (seemingly) Biblical, read the primary sources on it. It’ll serve you well by reading the proponent’s arguments first and then bouncing other’s ideas off of them. Even when I say something excathedra as Chief Cook and Bottle Washer.
Wierwille taught that the passages in the Bible that seem to indicate God does unpleasant things were simply "idiom of permission" or weren't addressed to Christians.
I recently did a quick Google search on the "idiom of permission" and it seemed to me that the only people who talk about it are indivuduals who are (or were) members of TWI or it's offshoots.
My friend believes, for example, that God did not "harden Pharoah's heart" in Exodus, nor does she believe that God caused the plagues -- in both instances, He "permitted Satan to do it." (To me, purposely letting something happen and actually doing it are almost the same thing, but that's neither here nor there.)
Is this the official Way doctrine...that Satan caused the plagues?
CES ran into big problems with their God's lack of foreknowledge. How can we rely on the accuracy of prophecy if God doesn't have foreknowledge?
This is something I've been strugling with recently, along with the concept of predestination. I don't know if I buy either one. But...I still have to think about it some more.
Wondering which "doctrine" is bad that she might have been encouraged to abandon?
She didn't abandon the ministry because of doctrine -- she holds fast to almost all of it. She and her husband resigned (is that the right word?) from Way Corps in the late (or early?) 90s because of what she claimed to be a "witch hunt" that was going on.
Maybe that's another thread to start, eh?
Indeed, I have been planning to, but I want to formulate my questions coherently, so I'm taking my time.
(I was brought up Roman Catholic without a “lic” of sense about the book)
Same here.
. It got so intense after I spoke in tongues (didn’t quite know what it was and the church I attended wasn’t…shall we say…informing me from the Bible) that I quit engineering school and went to a Bible college.
While Open Theism is not the subject in this thread, there may be areas that come up with the question of God's soverienty in mind (and is "almighty" a good translation for shadai?). And please do go to those who have written first on the subject (Primary sources, not secondary) and make up your own minds.
Please, when something comes up here that is foreign to you or is in some sense (seemingly) Biblical, read the primary sources on it. It'll serve you well by reading the proponent's arguments first and then bouncing other's ideas off of them. Even when I say something excathedra as Chief Cook and Bottle Washer.
RE
I read VP's stuff first. . .. that did not serve me well at all. . . . . . of course, I couldn't make up my own mind. . . . I didn't know sound doctrine. . . I just got my ears tickled and backside patted.
I would give different advice. Go to those recognized and respected teachers in the church. There are a great many people proposing a great many things. . . all convinced they have the newest light. Then there are those recognized for excellent scholarship and conduct. N.T Wright, Daniel B Wallace, John Lennox (Oxford) to name a few. I once posted a list here.
If we have a question . . . I say seek out those trained who have not jumped the tracks. . . Just my opinion. Wish I had once followed my own advice. :) And, prayerfully consider.
As concerning the inspiration and inerrancy of the scriptures I am a believer in both concepts.
I really enjoy reading historical information that sheds light on how the ancients (to us anyway) pulled it off. And along those lines this thread has given many good considerations.
But lately I've been thinking about all the folks who preach both the inspiration and inerrancy of the scriptures. As concerning Wierwille and The Way International it seems clear to me that for all the preaching about the scriptural truth, that The Way International has proven itself to be worthy of terrible judgment according to the very scriptures that they supposedly preach.
But moving beyond that arguable consideration of mine I think I often focus on the folks who preach a fundamentalist view of scriptures that I hold.
Oftentimes folks who preach even the very same things that I hold as beliefs seem like blowhards to me. And while that impression of mine is harsh it is oftentimes that I end up thinking that my initial gut reaction to a preacher seemed justified.
Maybe it's because of a certain immaturity on the part of the preacher, as if what they were unwittingly promoting by their views concerning the inerrancy of the scriptures was in fact the inerrancy of THEIR VIEWS as concerning God, religion, life, and the scriptures. And if that proves to be the case in my view, then such immaturity would translate according to my normal temperment as being a blowhard. But I usually deal with the situation by seeing how they react to something I think of as a worthy consideration first, to see what the chances of us having a decent and profitable conversation are.
Psalm 119 is a huge example of a healthy view of the scripture's worth IMO. But the reputed author of that Psalm; David I believe; had no easy life. He had great victories and stunning obstacles and enemies. He was at times no better than a wandering vagrant and at other times he ruled Israel and was held in esteem as "The Lamp of Israel." And I believe BECAUSE of the things he learned in his struggles he could honestly end up in complete awe of the God of Abraham and His Ways and was convinced of the inevitability of His Counsel eventually coming to pass, and write Psalm 119.
And absolutely none of us has had to suffer through anything as intense as a crucifiction in order to see God's promises come to pass.
So compared to either of them IMO I have nothing to boast about. But I admit that if as my life is winding down I can still hold the scriptures in high esteem as the writer of Psalm 119 did I will be happy for it.
How about the execution of 3,000 brothers, friends and neighbors in Exodus 32:27?
And the hurtling of large hailstones at retreating Amorites and Gibeonites in Joshua 10:11?
Sorry, this might be a little off-topic.
It's not off-topic.
The explanation given in The Way was that, since people in OT times supposedly could not understand spiritual matters (no spirit in them/God only speaks to spirit), God had to resort to explaining things from a "5 senses" point of view.
One of the beautiful things you've done with your posts, Bob, is to demonstrate for me what a wide range of opinion is subsumed under the single word "inerrancy."
Here's where I currently stand on the issue. I think the primary way that God communicates with people is by way of subjective inspiration through His spirit (Spirit? I'm not sure where I currently stand on capitalizing "spirit"). I think the things that have been written about God (the Scripture? Scriptures? scripture?) can be used by God as an objective, secondary witness to either confirm or deny things I think He might be trying to communicate to me. The question that has driven me since leaving CES has not been "What was actually written in the original autographs?" but rather "What did this mean to the people who originally wrote and read it?"
"Inspiration and the inerrancy of Scripture
A Believers discussion of what to do with Holy Writ"
What an example of the limitations of writing (not that I think this particular thread title is Holy)! You see, the context tells me that the word "Believers" is intended as a possessive, though it lacks an apostrophe that would definitely make it so. The omission of the apostrophe opens to question whether the word "Believers" is singular or plural. Does the indefinite article "A" refer to "Believers" or to "discussion"? Is this thread a singular-believer's (presumably Bob's) discussion of what to do with Holy Writ, or is it a multiple-believers' discussion?
On the surface, the previous paragraph may look like a series of frivolous questions, but consider this, in antiquity the written part of a letter did not constitute the whole of the letter. It was an age of almost universal illiteracy. When Phoebe delivered Paul's letter to the Romans, she didn't have them sign for a registered envelope, and then just leave. She read the letter out loud to the congregation(s). There were no mikes or speakers in antiquity. There were no public address systems. Classical rhetoricians had developed a standard system of exaggerated inflections and gestures to help communicate the meaning to those members of the audience who were at the very edge of hearing distance.
When Phoebe delivered Paul's letter to the Romans, she didn't read it the way we might today. It was more of an operatic performance, with stock inflections and stock gestures to make the meanings clear. To the Romans, and to Paul, the letter was not just the written part, but the whole performance. Paul probably rehearsed Phoebe before she left, to make sure she communicated what he wanted. The written part of the letter was just the "score" for Phoebe to follow as she performed. If anybody wants to read more about this, I recommend "Books and Readers in the Early Church" by Harry Y. Gamble (1995).
After Phoebe left, the congregation(s) at Rome preserved and copied the written potion of Paul's letter, but as the generation who had heard Phoebe's performance died out, the clarifications of the inflections and gestures were lost.
How many questions arise in our interpretation of the title of this thread because one apostrophe is missing? In antiquity there WEREN'T any apostrophes! There weren't even any spaces between the words!
Very interesting approach on Biblical research showing up here. I suppose that if Luther stayed with the “tried and true” I might still be serving Mass (did I mention I was an altar boy?) and having the heirarchy tell me what is the correct way to understand what is written and what interpretation I might be allowed to consider. One case in point in my life came up pretty quickly after I learned a smidgon of the Scriptures. My professor, who, BTW now is head of the Biblical Studies department of my alma mater (one of the engineers on the “train” mentioned above), insisted on their being multiple authors of the book of Isaiah (I’m sure some of you here have been down that long (insane) road (or have at least heard of that long road) of Biblical criticism in the Hebrew Scriptures).
Being naïve in the ways of discourse (I was (and am, BTW) an engineer at heart and pretty much looked at things through a math and physics eye) and having no previous experience in theology (historical or otherwise) and of course being “young and restless” in my own intelligence (i.e. - I was a pompous a.s.s)…I asked him to prove it. Let’s just say he was none too pleased with that remark and later, because of my growing Unitarian stance at this prestigious school, tried to get me thrown out. Cooler minds prevailed (I had my own Gamailiel) and I was allowed to remain. Point is, I disagree with this paragon of wisdom even today (we’ve communicated recently).
I guess we could go about with dueling theologians as some suggest, but I think a discussion on the items and issues right here is better. Some want to discuss Open Theism, then start a thread and discuss. Don’t mince with other expert’s words, but have at it yourself. I’ll not defend it here, but will (again) ask that any interested party read the primary sources and their authors first before taking a secondary’s opinion (Satan & the Problem of Evil: Constructing a Trinitarian Warfare Theodicy, Greg Boyd (2001). Then there’s The God Who Risks: A Theology of Providence, John Sanders, 1998. InterVarsity Press and The Openness of God: A Biblical Challenge to the Traditional Understanding of God, Clark Pinnock editor, et al., 1994, InterVarsity Press). OMG, I’ve recommended Trinitarians (all) and look, some were published by Intervarsity Press. Can’t get more non-heretically homgeneous than that. They must be on the right track…or not.
Now, I’ve told my children since they were, well, kids, how NOT to act around the religious elite (I (literally) wore the t-shirt that said, “Jesus Christ is not God”…man was I a jerk; maybe that had something to do with almost being thrown out of school…hmmm), but also having been brought up with a theological daddy, they knew that any question was not a dumb question. They learned from whatever source my wife (who homeschooled them and is way smarter than me) and I thought was the best. They had Jehovah Witnesses biblical primers (OMG!), they went to numerous churches, read disparate documents that I and others had published and grew up pretty well (questioning and answering types).
They continue to push Dad’s buttons (excuse me “push the envelope” is what I really meant) on all things theological and they don’t always track on my heading…outta’ tosh them out of the group, don’t ya think?
Did I push some buttons? It wasn't my intention, but I stand by what I advised. People are free to take it or leave it. Considering our shared cult experience. . . . it didn't seem like threatening advice to me.
BTW, I have to depend on experts, I don't know it all.
I depend on Christians with talent in other areas. I have simply learned to be wary of who I listen to.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
10
18
17
12
Popular Days
Mar 12
23
Mar 9
11
Mar 8
9
Feb 28
7
Top Posters In This Topic
Oakspear 10 posts
Steve Lortz 18 posts
geisha779 17 posts
roberterasmus 12 posts
Popular Days
Mar 12 2010
23 posts
Mar 9 2010
11 posts
Mar 8 2010
9 posts
Feb 28 2010
7 posts
Popular Posts
pawtucket
No one is required to "answer" you. Quit goading others. You are more than welcome to your opinion as is everyone else on this board.
Sunesis
I'm not going to address whether people think they are inspired, inerrant or whatever, people will have their own opinion. I will just address what I think about the order of the NT cannon. Its just
Steve Lortz
James D. G. Dunn is just about the best current New Testament scholar I've found in my all too brief and spotty survey of the literature. He has written a number of good books. Two that may bear on re
Steve Lortz
In this post, I'm going to talk about the relationship I had with God before I got involved with TWI, not as any sort of boasting, but because there were a number of things I had learned BEFORE I had ever heard of The Way International. And those things influenced both what I thought of TWI while in, and some of the things I've had to flush from my mind since.
I was not a particulary religious youth, but I went to a denominational college because it was located in my home town and my Pop wouldn't have to pay extra for housing expenses. I didn't belong to the denomination, so I was one of the token heathen on campus, but I DID read the Bible as a result of course requirements. Even though I didn't understand or trust the Bible, I had read it as an adult.
In 1973, at the age of 24, I came to the end of my rope. I was going crazy. I was by myself, sobbing. There was nothing I could change about the place where I was, the people around me, or even my own schedule or lifestyle, and I knew I was as close to the brink of going crazy as I had ever been. I was going to go crazy if something didn't change, and there was nothing outside myself I could change. I began to hyperventilate. Without any expectation of result, simply because it wasn't the only thing I hadn't already tried, I cried out "God help me..." And as I did so, I remembered reading a verse where Jesus had said he would do whatever we asked, if we asked in his name.
So I finished up, "...in the name of Jesus Christ." Immediately, my breathing returned to normal, and I began a process I can describe only as God teaching me how to change the things that were in my heart.
I believed in reincarnation at the time, and I thought of Jesus as an ascended master. I learned from a book called Real Magic that I could work magic through my believing, and that the paraphenalia of magic work as objects for focusing believing. I thought that I could sometimes get results using the name of Jesus Christ because it was operating as a focus. I also made it a habit to express thanksgiving when I prayed.
For a time, I was working at a job that required fine manual dexterity. One day at work, I found myself getting so upset that my hands were trembling. I couldn't do the work. I needed to call my then-current girlfriend that evening, and I very well knew that we might break up as a result of the phone call. I took a break, went out back and paced around. As I paced, I talked to God. I said, "God, I don't know what's going to happen tonight, but I'm going to accept whatever happens as your will. Thank you in the name of Jesus Christ." Instantly I was inundated with peace, and all the anxiety was washed away. I was able to go back in and work.
A couple of years later, in the fall of 1979, I was invited to a twig meeting and I went, out of curiosity. The young lady who did the teaching taught on Philippians 4:6&7, "Be careful for nothing; but in every thing by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made unto God. And the peace of God, which passeth all understanding, shall keep your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus."
That teaching got me intrigued. I knew it was real and I knew it was spiritual, because I had experienced it out behind work that day. But that was the first time I had ever heard anybody teach anything I personally knew to be real and spiritual from THE BIBLE! It was like God tapping me on the shoulder and saying "There's something I want you to learn here, boy." One thing led to another, and I took PFAL in July of 1980. "Power of attorney" and "the law of believing" seemed (super)natural enough to me. My brother and I had been trying for a dozen or so years to figure out what happens to people when they die, and I found "the dead are not alive" revolutionary for my thinking.
But it took me awhile before I bought into what Wierwille called the "integrity" of the Word of God. One day a few months after I had taken PFAL (I think about the same time I took the intermediate class), I was reading along in the Old Testament, and I noticed a particular word, and from the context I thought "I bet it's "thus-and-such". I looked it up, and found out it WAS "thus-and-such". That was the spine-tingling moment for me, when I sold out to The Way International.
It's time for me to take my insulin again. More later tonight.
Love,
Steve
Edited by Steve LortzLink to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
So there I was... I wasn't just surrounded by twiggies... I WAS one! Group-thinker, extraordinaire. A couple of years after I took PFAL, I went WOW to Tucson in the 40th Anniversary Wave. After that, I coordinated a twig for two years, and then went into the 16th Corps. I was in residence at Gunnison on the Corps Night when CG33r read "The Passing of A Patriarch". Coincidentally, my Pop had a massive stroke, and at the end of the block a few days later, I dropped from the 16th Corps and went home to help take care of him. My home is in Indiana, and I was able to get over to headquarters frequently, so I had a ringside seat to watch the implosion during the early fog years. I disassociated from TWI in 1986 when I found out about the sexual predation from a girl I knew who had experienced it firsthand. But I went to the ROA in '87 and took whoever I could out to the woods to tell them the truth about what was going on. That was my last involvement with The Way International.
When JAL came back to Indy in the late-'80s, I started attending his early CES functions. In the early days of CES, John, John and Mark were willing to re-examine the things we had been taught in TWI. They rejected the law of believing as turning God into a vending machine. They recovered some appreciation of the Lordship of Jesus Christ. But they out Weirwille-ed Wierwille with "Don't Blame God." I slumped back into the same sort of passive acceptance I had experienced in TWI.
Then came Momentus.
About a year after I took the Momentus training, a few people started speaking frankly about the horrors they had suffered as a result, and I recognized elements of my own experience. It dawned on us that we hadn't suffered because WE had been screwed up, but because MOMENTUS was screwed up. When we brought this to the attention of the leaders of CES, they seemed incredibly blind to common sense, and the havoc they were wreaking on their followers lives. I had to leave CES in about '95. The Who's song "Won't Be Fooled Again" took on a lot of significance for a number of us.
I haven't been closely associated with any religious organization since, though I did teach humane letters to seventh-graders for five years at an interdenominational school. That was a lot of fun, and we faculty members enjoyed discussing the things of God while agreeing to disagree.
Right now, I don't think there's a Christian group on the face of the earth that wouldn't consider me to be a heretic in one way or another. A few years back, I read a book called "The Origins of Stoic Cosmology" by David E. Hahm and found out that Stoicism was the default popular philosophy in the Greco-Roman world from about 300 BC to about 200 AD. During the past couple of years, I've been reading Augustine, looking for the neo-platonism HE took for granted. The other day, I learned about a book called "Paul and the Stoics" by Troels Engberg-Pederson, and I ordered a copy. I'm waiting breathlessly for it to arrive.
But enough about me.
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
Hi Bob,
I want to really read your first post. . . . and take my time with it. I can't even express to you how much I appreciate the time you put into it. Thursday and Fridays are travel days for me. . . depending. So, if you asked me a question I am not ignoring you.
I did want to answer this quickly though. It wasn't that I was lumping CES with TWI in this case. . . it was that I wanted to illustrate the point that Geisler knew of TWI and VP. The reason I know this is that I have a friend who co-authored a book with Geisler. We have spoken about TWI and the splinter groups. I think there was some back and forth between CES and some papers submitted somewhere. . . . I think Harvard may have ended up with them?? But, that blurb from the article illustrated my point. Although, all you have to do is read anything by Geisler on cults.
From where I sit, Pastor Juedes has been a faithful friend to people in TWI, and I recognize his analysis of disparate groups like TWI. I don't have a very high opinion of TWI and like you have moved on.
But, I am glad you are here. :)
Edited by geisha779Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
In general TWI "offshoots" get lumped in with TWI because they're...offshoots. Different branches...sometimes really different branches...but the same root. That's my observation, others may have different things to say.
What is an "open theist"?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
soul searcher
I have listened to many hours of CES/STF/CFFM classes and, judging from what I have read in this forum, virtually all of it is Way doctrine warmed up. Which makes sense to me since my ex-Way friend (who sent me the classes) may have left the ministry but she hasn't abandoned the doctrine.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TrustAndObey
(Taken from Wikipedia)
Practically, open theism makes the case for a personal God who is open to influence through the prayers, decisions, and actions of people. Although many specific outcomes of the future are unknowable, God's foreknowledge of the future includes that which is determined as time progresses often in light of free decisions that have been made and what has been sociologically determined. So God knows everything that has been determined as well as what has not yet been determined but remains open. As such, he is able to anticipate the future, yet remains fluid to respond and react to prayer and decisions made either contrary or advantageous to His plan or presuppositions.
Boyd claims that "open theism" is an inappropriate term since the position posits more about the nature of time and reality than it does about God itself. This is to say that open theists do not believe that God doesn't know the future, but rather that the future doesn't exist to be known by anyone. For the open theist the future simply hasn't happened yet, not for anyone, and thus is unknowable in the common sense. Thus, to say that God doesn't know the future is akin to saying that he doesn't know about square circles. In this understanding, it could be technically wiser to refer to the view as "Open Futurism"
CES/STFI promotes this view but TWI did not. It is a view used to explain why God changes his mind, makes mistakes, and bad things happen despite God being "all good" but not capably in control of everything.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
Here is a synopsis of Open Theism from Bible.org . . . . . the rest of the article can be found at bible.org under An Examination of Open Theism
for many, it is an extremely problematic theology.
http://bible.org/art...ion-open-theism
Open theism is concerned with how God experiences the world. It asks and attempts to answer the questions, "What does God know?" and "When does He know it?" The essence of the questions open theists ask are not dealing with how God knows the future, but if he knows it at all.3 An early proponent of open theism said, "God experienced the events of the world He has created. . .as they happen, rather than all at once in some timeless, eternal perception. This also means that not even God knows the future in all its details."4 Open theists maintain that God does not know what a given human being will do until he acts. They refer to such human actions as "possibilities."5 Because God remains unaware of human possibilities, the future remains "open" in His mind. This means that rather than God knowing all things, He is in the process of learning new things as they take place.6 This is a significant redefinition of the classical doctrine of God's omniscience.7 The open theist's view of omniscience is that God has complete knowledge of the past and the present, but not the future8 What God does know of the future is in reference to what he knows of "present dispositions, proclivities, inclinations, intentions and probabilities as well as they can be known."9
Along with the doctrine of omniscience, open theism questions and redefines a number of historical and theological formulations of the attributes of God.
Independence. Grudem defines God's independence as, "God does not need us or the rest of creation for anything, yet we and the rest of creation can glorify him and bring him joy."10 Open theism teaches that God is dependent on the world in certain respects.11
Immutability. Classical theology defines God's immutability as, "God is unchanging in his being, perfections, purposes, and promises, yet God does act and feel emotions, and he acts and feels differently in response to different situations.12 Open theism teaches God is, "…open to new experiences, has a capacity for novelty and is open to reality, which itself is open to change."13 Trying to have it both ways open theism says, "God is immutable in essence and in his trustworthiness over time, but in other respects God changes."14
Eternality. Classical theism states, "God has no beginning, end, or succession of moments in his own being, and he sees all time equally vividly, yet God sees events in time and acts in time."15 Open theism teaches that, "God is a temporal agent. He is above time in the sense that he is above finite experience and measurement of time but he is not beyond "before and after" or beyond sequence of events. Scripture presents God as temporally everlasting, not timelessly eternal….Clearly God is temporally related to creatures and projects himself and his actions along a temporal path."16
Omnipresence. Classical theology teaches that just as God is unlimited or infinite with respect to time, so God is unlimited with respect to space. God's omnipresence may be defined as, "God does not have size or spatial dimensions and is present at every point of space with his whole being, yet God acts differently in different places."17 A leading proponent of open theism says, "I do not feel obliged to assume that God is a purely spiritual being when his self-revelation does not suggest it….The only persons we encounter are embodied persons and, if God is not embodied, it may prove difficult to understand how God is a person….Embodiment may be the way in which the transcendent God is able to be immanent and why God is presented in such terms."18
Unity. The unity of God in classical theology is defined as, "God is not divided into parts, yet we see different attributes of God emphasized at different time."19 This is also called in theology the "simplicity" of God, meaning that God in not composed of parts and cautioning against singling out any one attribute of God as more important than all the others. This will be examined when the hermeneutics of open theism is discussed. Open theism reveals that, "The doctrine of divine simplicity, so crucial to the classical understanding of God, has been abandoned by a strong majority of Christian philosophers, through it still has a small band of defenders."20 Clark Pinnock, having abandoned this doctrine says, "Let us not treat the attributes of God independently of the Bible but view the biblical metaphors as reality-depicting descriptions of the living God, whose very being is self-giving love."21
Omnipotence. Classical theism defines God's omnipotence in reference to His own power to do what he decides to do. It states, "God's omnipotence means that God is able to do all his holy will."22 On the other hand open theism states that "we must not define omnipotence as the power to determine everything but rather as the power that enables God to deal with any situation that arises."23 Pinnock openly states that, "God cannot just do anything he wants, when he wants to….His power can, at least temporarily, be blocked and his will not be done in the short term.
Edited by geisha779Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
Interesting....
Like God is a car and a map that we control.
Best buckle up cuz God will be doing the driving at times.
It'll be a lot faster then you could drive the map.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
soul searcher
Thank you for that geisha. This Open Theism makes God out to be a bit mellower than what most people think of him as -- more of a "nice guy" (I guess maybe that should be Nice Guy, with caps). So I can see why many Christians would have problems with it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
I think it makes Him out to be clueless myself, but God is very kind.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
I second soul searcher in thanking you for your post, geisha!
In the early days of CES, I was on the Dialogue staff and I helped proof read some of the books John, John and Mark put out. I compiled the index for one of them, I think it was "Is there Death After Life?" They gave me a typescript of "Don't Blame God" to proof, and it just about killed any enthusiasm I had previously had for CES "research."
If I remember rightly, it was while they were working on "Don't Blame God" that they came up with the wonderful idea that God can't have foreknowledge, because if He did, that would make Him responsible for evil. Wierwille taught that the passages in the Bible that seem to indicate God does unpleasant things were simply "idiom of permission" or weren't addressed to Christians. CES took those teachings to another order of magnitude with all sorts of tortured rationalizations. I think they believed their teachings about "Don't Blame God" were major, if not the most important, selling points for their class, "Introduction to God's Heart."
CES ran into big problems with their God's lack of foreknowledge. How can we rely on the accuracy of prophecy if God doesn't have foreknowledge? On what foundation does our hope for the future rest? They fell back on the old feature of determinism, if you could know where all the particles in the universe were located at a given moment, and you could know how they were moving, you could extrapolate everything that had ever happened since the beginning, and everything that will ever happen until the end. They concluded that God's omniscience doesn't depend on foreknowledge, but rather on being aware of where all the particles are, and how they are moving.
But... that raises two other problems, one physical, the other theological. The physical problem arises from the truth that the quantum-mechanical model of the universe, which actually works on scales where the deterministic classical-mechanical model doesn't, eliminates determinism at a fundamental level. The theological problem arises because, if the universe is sufficiently deterministic for God to predict that some guys are going to be rolling dice over Jesus' coat a thousand years before it happens, how can it be said that human beings have any meaningful degree of free will?
CES posited that human beings DO have free will, but there are enough deterministic factors in play for God to deliver accurate prophecies. In essence, they simply denied that a contradiction exists. They didn't comprehend how far their rationalizations had taken them from physical and Biblical actuality.
In my opinion, the CES rationalizations have turned their God into a Pillsbury Doughboy (punch him in the stomach, and he just giggles), perpetually on the ropes at the mercy of a nearly omnipotent devil. To say God can't have foreknowledge of an uncertain universe is to limit God's point of view to that of man, a whopping diminution.
I would rather have a God who is responsible for evil than a God who is irresponsible.
Love,
Steve
Edited by Steve LortzLink to comment
Share on other sites
roberterasmus
Wondering which "doctrine" is bad that she might have been encouraged to abandon? Maybe that's another thread to start, eh?
RE
While Open Theism is not the subject in this thread, there may be areas that come up with the question of God’s soverienty in mind (and is "almighty" a good translation for shadai?). And please do go to those who have written first on the subject (Primary sources, not secondary) and make up your own minds. I suppose a thread on this subject would fill up the next few months in my schedule, so I’m not necessarily interested in formulating a Biblical theory here on GS, but I’ll comment as I can as it relates here.
I remember when I first came to a beginning understanding of the Bible and I had everybody and his brother telling me what they thought (I was brought up Roman Catholic without a “lic” of sense about the book). It got so intense after I spoke in tongues (didn’t quite know what it was and the church I attended wasn’t…shall we say…informing me from the Bible) that I quit engineering school and went to a Bible college. My desire was to learn the primary sources of all this Bible stuff (Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic) and read the damn thing myself without the wool being pulled over my eyes…ever again.
Please, when something comes up here that is foreign to you or is in some sense (seemingly) Biblical, read the primary sources on it. It’ll serve you well by reading the proponent’s arguments first and then bouncing other’s ideas off of them. Even when I say something excathedra as Chief Cook and Bottle Washer.
RE
Link to comment
Share on other sites
soul searcher
Great post, Steve.
I recently did a quick Google search on the "idiom of permission" and it seemed to me that the only people who talk about it are indivuduals who are (or were) members of TWI or it's offshoots.
My friend believes, for example, that God did not "harden Pharoah's heart" in Exodus, nor does she believe that God caused the plagues -- in both instances, He "permitted Satan to do it." (To me, purposely letting something happen and actually doing it are almost the same thing, but that's neither here nor there.)
Is this the official Way doctrine...that Satan caused the plagues?
This is something I've been strugling with recently, along with the concept of predestination. I don't know if I buy either one. But...I still have to think about it some more.
Edited by soul searcherLink to comment
Share on other sites
soul searcher
She didn't abandon the ministry because of doctrine -- she holds fast to almost all of it. She and her husband resigned (is that the right word?) from Way Corps in the late (or early?) 90s because of what she claimed to be a "witch hunt" that was going on.
Indeed, I have been planning to, but I want to formulate my questions coherently, so I'm taking my time.
Same here.
So you SIT before you entered TWI?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
I read VP's stuff first. . .. that did not serve me well at all. . . . . . of course, I couldn't make up my own mind. . . . I didn't know sound doctrine. . . I just got my ears tickled and backside patted.
I would give different advice. Go to those recognized and respected teachers in the church. There are a great many people proposing a great many things. . . all convinced they have the newest light. Then there are those recognized for excellent scholarship and conduct. N.T Wright, Daniel B Wallace, John Lennox (Oxford) to name a few. I once posted a list here.
If we have a question . . . I say seek out those trained who have not jumped the tracks. . . Just my opinion. Wish I had once followed my own advice. :) And, prayerfully consider.
Edited by geisha779Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Yes.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
year2027
God first
thanks everybody
how can we "Inspiration and the inerrancy of Scripture " of someone words
Moses spoke it and his are no greater any other person words
it was prophesy the Moses spoke
Paul are like Moses words just in part
with love and a holy kiss Roy
Link to comment
Share on other sites
soul searcher
How about the execution of 3,000 brothers, friends and neighbors in Exodus 32:27?
And the hurtling of large hailstones at retreating Amorites and Gibeonites in Joshua 10:11?
Sorry, this might be a little off-topic.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JeffSjo
As concerning the inspiration and inerrancy of the scriptures I am a believer in both concepts.
I really enjoy reading historical information that sheds light on how the ancients (to us anyway) pulled it off. And along those lines this thread has given many good considerations.
But lately I've been thinking about all the folks who preach both the inspiration and inerrancy of the scriptures. As concerning Wierwille and The Way International it seems clear to me that for all the preaching about the scriptural truth, that The Way International has proven itself to be worthy of terrible judgment according to the very scriptures that they supposedly preach.
But moving beyond that arguable consideration of mine I think I often focus on the folks who preach a fundamentalist view of scriptures that I hold.
Oftentimes folks who preach even the very same things that I hold as beliefs seem like blowhards to me. And while that impression of mine is harsh it is oftentimes that I end up thinking that my initial gut reaction to a preacher seemed justified.
Maybe it's because of a certain immaturity on the part of the preacher, as if what they were unwittingly promoting by their views concerning the inerrancy of the scriptures was in fact the inerrancy of THEIR VIEWS as concerning God, religion, life, and the scriptures. And if that proves to be the case in my view, then such immaturity would translate according to my normal temperment as being a blowhard. But I usually deal with the situation by seeing how they react to something I think of as a worthy consideration first, to see what the chances of us having a decent and profitable conversation are.
Psalm 119 is a huge example of a healthy view of the scripture's worth IMO. But the reputed author of that Psalm; David I believe; had no easy life. He had great victories and stunning obstacles and enemies. He was at times no better than a wandering vagrant and at other times he ruled Israel and was held in esteem as "The Lamp of Israel." And I believe BECAUSE of the things he learned in his struggles he could honestly end up in complete awe of the God of Abraham and His Ways and was convinced of the inevitability of His Counsel eventually coming to pass, and write Psalm 119.
And absolutely none of us has had to suffer through anything as intense as a crucifiction in order to see God's promises come to pass.
So compared to either of them IMO I have nothing to boast about. But I admit that if as my life is winding down I can still hold the scriptures in high esteem as the writer of Psalm 119 did I will be happy for it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
It's not off-topic.
The explanation given in The Way was that, since people in OT times supposedly could not understand spiritual matters (no spirit in them/God only speaks to spirit), God had to resort to explaining things from a "5 senses" point of view.
Edited by waysiderLink to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
One of the beautiful things you've done with your posts, Bob, is to demonstrate for me what a wide range of opinion is subsumed under the single word "inerrancy."
Here's where I currently stand on the issue. I think the primary way that God communicates with people is by way of subjective inspiration through His spirit (Spirit? I'm not sure where I currently stand on capitalizing "spirit"). I think the things that have been written about God (the Scripture? Scriptures? scripture?) can be used by God as an objective, secondary witness to either confirm or deny things I think He might be trying to communicate to me. The question that has driven me since leaving CES has not been "What was actually written in the original autographs?" but rather "What did this mean to the people who originally wrote and read it?"
"Inspiration and the inerrancy of Scripture
A Believers discussion of what to do with Holy Writ"
What an example of the limitations of writing (not that I think this particular thread title is Holy)! You see, the context tells me that the word "Believers" is intended as a possessive, though it lacks an apostrophe that would definitely make it so. The omission of the apostrophe opens to question whether the word "Believers" is singular or plural. Does the indefinite article "A" refer to "Believers" or to "discussion"? Is this thread a singular-believer's (presumably Bob's) discussion of what to do with Holy Writ, or is it a multiple-believers' discussion?
On the surface, the previous paragraph may look like a series of frivolous questions, but consider this, in antiquity the written part of a letter did not constitute the whole of the letter. It was an age of almost universal illiteracy. When Phoebe delivered Paul's letter to the Romans, she didn't have them sign for a registered envelope, and then just leave. She read the letter out loud to the congregation(s). There were no mikes or speakers in antiquity. There were no public address systems. Classical rhetoricians had developed a standard system of exaggerated inflections and gestures to help communicate the meaning to those members of the audience who were at the very edge of hearing distance.
When Phoebe delivered Paul's letter to the Romans, she didn't read it the way we might today. It was more of an operatic performance, with stock inflections and stock gestures to make the meanings clear. To the Romans, and to Paul, the letter was not just the written part, but the whole performance. Paul probably rehearsed Phoebe before she left, to make sure she communicated what he wanted. The written part of the letter was just the "score" for Phoebe to follow as she performed. If anybody wants to read more about this, I recommend "Books and Readers in the Early Church" by Harry Y. Gamble (1995).
After Phoebe left, the congregation(s) at Rome preserved and copied the written potion of Paul's letter, but as the generation who had heard Phoebe's performance died out, the clarifications of the inflections and gestures were lost.
How many questions arise in our interpretation of the title of this thread because one apostrophe is missing? In antiquity there WEREN'T any apostrophes! There weren't even any spaces between the words!
Love,
Steve
Edited by Steve LortzLink to comment
Share on other sites
roberterasmus
Very interesting approach on Biblical research showing up here. I suppose that if Luther stayed with the “tried and true” I might still be serving Mass (did I mention I was an altar boy?) and having the heirarchy tell me what is the correct way to understand what is written and what interpretation I might be allowed to consider. One case in point in my life came up pretty quickly after I learned a smidgon of the Scriptures. My professor, who, BTW now is head of the Biblical Studies department of my alma mater (one of the engineers on the “train” mentioned above), insisted on their being multiple authors of the book of Isaiah (I’m sure some of you here have been down that long (insane) road (or have at least heard of that long road) of Biblical criticism in the Hebrew Scriptures).
Being naïve in the ways of discourse (I was (and am, BTW) an engineer at heart and pretty much looked at things through a math and physics eye) and having no previous experience in theology (historical or otherwise) and of course being “young and restless” in my own intelligence (i.e. - I was a pompous a.s.s)…I asked him to prove it. Let’s just say he was none too pleased with that remark and later, because of my growing Unitarian stance at this prestigious school, tried to get me thrown out. Cooler minds prevailed (I had my own Gamailiel) and I was allowed to remain. Point is, I disagree with this paragon of wisdom even today (we’ve communicated recently).
I guess we could go about with dueling theologians as some suggest, but I think a discussion on the items and issues right here is better. Some want to discuss Open Theism, then start a thread and discuss. Don’t mince with other expert’s words, but have at it yourself. I’ll not defend it here, but will (again) ask that any interested party read the primary sources and their authors first before taking a secondary’s opinion (Satan & the Problem of Evil: Constructing a Trinitarian Warfare Theodicy, Greg Boyd (2001). Then there’s The God Who Risks: A Theology of Providence, John Sanders, 1998. InterVarsity Press and The Openness of God: A Biblical Challenge to the Traditional Understanding of God, Clark Pinnock editor, et al., 1994, InterVarsity Press). OMG, I’ve recommended Trinitarians (all) and look, some were published by Intervarsity Press. Can’t get more non-heretically homgeneous than that. They must be on the right track…or not.
Now, I’ve told my children since they were, well, kids, how NOT to act around the religious elite (I (literally) wore the t-shirt that said, “Jesus Christ is not God”…man was I a jerk; maybe that had something to do with almost being thrown out of school…hmmm), but also having been brought up with a theological daddy, they knew that any question was not a dumb question. They learned from whatever source my wife (who homeschooled them and is way smarter than me) and I thought was the best. They had Jehovah Witnesses biblical primers (OMG!), they went to numerous churches, read disparate documents that I and others had published and grew up pretty well (questioning and answering types).
They continue to push Dad’s buttons (excuse me “push the envelope” is what I really meant) on all things theological and they don’t always track on my heading…outta’ tosh them out of the group, don’t ya think?
Gotta go upstairs for supper. Maybe more later.
Bob
Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
Did I push some buttons? It wasn't my intention, but I stand by what I advised. People are free to take it or leave it. Considering our shared cult experience. . . . it didn't seem like threatening advice to me.
BTW, I have to depend on experts, I don't know it all.
I depend on Christians with talent in other areas. I have simply learned to be wary of who I listen to.
Gee. . . I wonder why?
Edited by geisha779Link to comment
Share on other sites
soul searcher
You didn't push my buttons. I'm in a good mood tonight so I'll use a smiley face:
Now,
In another thread someone mentioned Karen Armstrong, have you read any of her books? I'm clueless when it come to religious writers.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.